The defendant is charged [in count __]
with risk of injury to a minor. The statute defining this offense imposes
punishment on any person who does any act likely to impair the (health / morals)
of a child under the age of sixteen years.

For you to find the defendant guilty
of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:

Element 1 - ActThe first element is that that the
defendant did an act that was likely to impair the (health / morals) of the
child.

[<If the alleged injury is to the
child's health:> To be likely to impair the health of a minor, the statute
requires that the defendant committed blatant physical abuse that endangered the
child's physical well-being.1]

[<If the alleged injury is to the
child's morals:> To be likely to impair the morals of a minor, the act must
be performed in a sexual and indecent manner.2
"Sexual" means having to do with sex and "indecent" means offensive to good
taste or public morals. As used here, "morals" means living, acting and
thinking in accordance with those principles and precepts that are commonly
accepted among us as right and decent.3]

I want to stress that the state does
NOT have to prove that the defendant actually did impair the (health / morals)
of the child. Rather, the state must show only that the defendant's behavior
was LIKELY to have done so. "Likely" means in all probability.4
Thus, the state must show that it was probable that the conduct of the defendant
would (physically injure / injure the health of / impair the morals of) the
child. There is no requirement that the state prove actual harm to the child.

[<Insert if appropriate:>5
The defendant need not have had the specific intent to impair the (health /
morals) of the child, only the general intent to do the act. <See
Intent: General, Instruction 2.3-1.>]

Element 2 - Minor under 16
years of ageThe second element is that at the time
of the incident, the child was under the age of sixteen years. This
means that the child had not yet had (his/her) sixteenth birthday.

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that 1) the defendant did an act that was likely to impair the (health / morals)
of the child, and 2) the minor was under 16 years of age at
the time.

If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of risk
of injury to a minor, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other
hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not
guilty.
_____________________________________________________________

5
See State v. Pierson, 201 Conn. 211, 217 (1986) (instruction need not
include principle of general intent unless evidence suggests that the
defendant's conduct was involuntary).

Commentary

In a case of "blatant physical abuse," a
defendant who is also a parent of the victim, or standing in loco parentis, may
raise the defense of parental justification to claim that the force used against
the child was reasonable discipline. State v. Nathan J., 294 Conn. 243,
260 (2009).